I just got back from seeing the movie. I really enjoyed it up until they reveal what's going on.

I don't really see the relation. Culkin was, in general, a kid who starred in kids movies. He was also a star, bigger than Fanning is, who was the headliner for a couple of films. He was never critically acclaimed though, he was the star of two of the biggest family films ever, hardly critical darlings. He got roles because he was marketable, simple as that. Plus, his disappearance from the film scene had more to do with his family than anything else I suspect.

He's getting some roles again, but he's just a side actor in small movies nowadays. He's probably still rich as shit anyway, so I doubt he's that bent out of shape over it.

I already assumed you wouldn't. But I can't help that now.

I'm not suggesting they were separated conjoined twins. I'm merely stating that Culkin and Fanning are the tops of the pops in the child actor department in their respective eras. When kids become tops of the pops, they tend to lose that natural spark that made them tops of the pops. It's happening to Fanning now.

Plus Fanning is second billed in HIDE AND SEEK. Name above the title, I believe. Don't tell me she's isn't semi-marketable like Culkin was. Why else would somebody request my death on this board when I questioned her future in acting? She's got a large fanbase.

And who mentioned anything about Culkin leaving the business? Did you even read my post?

just got back from seeing it. I thought it was decent.. I didn't see any of the ads or reviews that gave the "twist" away but about halfway through the film i started hoping they don't do that. I was really hoping it would have been the neighbor or even the sheriff or the real estate guy.. but oh well. I thought the acting was great, the story however needed work. DeNiro was awesome and so was fanning.. I hate saying I like her though, cuz I feel like a pedafile or something saying it , but I think as long as she stays away from drugs and stuff like every other kid 'star" gets into, she'll have a long and great career... but I guess we'll see what happens when she turns into a teenager and discovers partying...

saw it last night too, I was liking it up until I figured out how itd turn out.
then I was kinda pissed b/c I felt like it was just a combination of other movies.

Horrible, horrible movie. Relies on cheaps "scares" and one of the easiest to deduce plots of recent memory.

The "twist," if you can call it that, is hardly original and was amazingly obvious. The acting is what one would expect from a bad horror movie, and characters are cliches. I mean, the sheriff in the big hat?

One of the worst movies I've seen in a while (this coming from someone who saw over 100 movies in theaters last year, not to mention countless DVD's). De Niro has become a mere shadow of his former self, and seems to have a penchant for the terrible as of late...

Wasn't bad until the last chunk of the movie. They had a real chance to make this more than the typical horror/suspense flick and they opted to take the more traveled path and go with cheap scares and predictable situations. Well-casted movie, though.

I'm just glad that it wasn't up to you or we wouldn't now have a grown up Kristen Dunst!!!

Yes, imagine a world without BRING IT ON, GET OVER IT, and WIMBELDON!

Here's the deal, it's really simple: Culkin has no talent and Fanning does and she will be around for a while because of it.

Culkin fell off because his parent's put him in crap role's,my bad any role,seems to me Fanning has been playing some pretty good role's,I havnt seen H&S yet though,comparing the 2 is insane.

Anybody noticed that in a couple of times, Dakota Fanning's pupils were dilated? What was that? Why?

I actually kinda liked it. Haven't liked anything DeNiro's been in in the past several years either. Even though I figured it out early on, I still liked the way it unfolded. The big turnoff for me was the last 5 minutes where:
Apart from that and the fact that the beginning was kinda dull, the film did a decent job of building suspense and tension.

I think John Polson gets the director gigs as retribution for having to kiss Russell Crowe.

Hmm, what next for the "split-personality killer" flick?

Maybe a movie that follows a serial killer planning to murder someone, only to find at the very end that he's his own target? Too ridiculous? GREAT, then!

I read yours. Did you read mine? I was saying, Culkin was never critically acclaimed, and I don't recall him ever being in a lot of roles that tried to play him off as some sort of special actor.

You said:
"She's the second coming of Macaulay Culkin: stiff, over-polished, and trying to conjure adult emotions when her range of life are ponies and trust funds.

Child actors should just be child actors. It drives me nuts when they achieve a certain amount of success, and suddenly they think they have "craft.""

While I think what you said applies somewhat to Dakota, it certainly doesn't apply to Culkin. I'm not sure where all these films he was in where he was showing off craft and trying to display adult emotions. He was in only two films that even tried to be anything more than just some silly kids movie, and only one where he was really acting like something other than a kid. The Good Son and My Girl. Every other film he did was some silly kids movie where he wasn't even attempting to be some great child actor. In fact, his last three films as a child were all kids movies. Don't tell me you think Richie Rich was him trying to be anything other than a regular ol child actor. Therefore, I don't see the relation. Then he disappeared. You then said look at what films he's in now...he's 20 something, and didn't come back to films until he was this age. That's why I mentioned his leaving the biz, because his return to acting has nothing to do with a child star, because when he returned to acting, he wasn't a child anymore.

There is a difference between the two. Culkin was there because people liked him and he was marketable. He was perhaps the biggest child movie star since god knows, Shirley Temple. Dakota may have her fans, but she isn't even close to the league that Culkin was as a movie star. I don't see her in the sole starring role of any movies. She gets second billing, which is damn impressive, but she isn't im my opinion of anywhere the same star power. Instead, she's seen as a good child actor, who's being placed in roles left and right, which I somewhat agree with your assessment there. But that description hardly applies to Culkin whatsoever. Haley Joel Osment might've been a decent choice for someone like her, a semi marketable child who got placed in some films where, quite frankly, they treated him as some great actor. Though he really didn't do very many movies and seems to have disappeared anyway.

Movie was ok but the "twist" could be seen a mile away, Anyone read over on Dark Horizons where they said 2 endings will be shown in theatres in Australia, none affecting the twist but having to do with the final shots, the one they reveal to be different from what we saw sounds more satisfying to me than what was shown in the US.

NEVER TALK TO STRANGERS

Exactly. Fanning(or agents) surrounds her with the best in the business and stars in more adult friendly fare than kiddie roles. This will assure her place in the industry when she is older.

Then we wouldn't have Jodie Foster, Helen Hunt or the entire cast of Stand By Me.

I blame myself for this, jaeu. I really do. I forget how often these arguments dissolve into a battle of obnoxious minutiae. My fault.

Are you aware Fanning does silly kids movies too? Her filmography is peppered with a HANSEL AND GRETEL and CAT IN THE HAT here and there…

I’m not saying that their careers are literally parallel (this is where your problem is). But I do feel the two share the same trajectory. Fanning might not be the mega-star that Culkin was back then, but she’s the “cat’s ass” right now, getting all the Culkinesque work she can bite into. Hollywood as designated her the “it” kid, and I don’t think she’s all that strong an actor to handle some of these scripts – much like Culkin was when he blew up and took over.

Along with GOOD SON and MY GIRL, please put NUTCRACKER and GETTING EVEN WITH DAD with films that were meant to test Culkin’s range. I think Fanning has about the same number of films she’s toplined with heavyish material, if you want to really get technical about it. IMDB the names again and tell me they have wildly divergent careers.

Those are strong parallels, to me at least.

As for Culkin’s absence from cinema, you misunderstand me. The point I was after was that his child instincts for acting were ported over to his adult performances regardless of long absences or family troubles. Hollywood ruined that terrific UNCLE BUCK spirit of his back in the day by making him act like an adult when he wasn’t ready for that yet. Fanning is the same way. She’s coached up the wazoo, and it shows in her performances. That’s bugs me.




Compare the two actors directly, literally, and yes, there is a difference. One has a penis, the other a vagina, if you want to play it that way.

But again, Fanning is the Culkin of her day. Do you not agree? That’s the idea I’m going for here. As you say, Osment didn’t work enough to bring him into this.

It’s only a matter of time before she takes on a “look at me!” starring role. UPTOWN GIRLS was dangerously close. This upcoming horse film with Kurt Russell feels even worse. She won’t have a HOME ALONE-style film, mostly due to her sex, but that doesn’t imply she isn’t huge right now. Box office is only one step in the journey.

Maybe you’re a fan, and that’s why you’re so resistant to Fanning-bashing. Again, somebody wished death upon me. I know people love her. Yet I don’t feel I am as off in this idea and you’re trying to make it seem.

Again…

And Fanning isn’t?

Foster I will give you. Hunt still has to suffer for PAY IT FORWARD, as far as I'm concerned.

But STAND BY ME? One is dead, and the other three are Jerry O'Connell, Corey Feldman, and Wil Wheaton... do you know how much crap cinema we would've been spared if they quit when they were young?

Unless of course you're a fan of KANGAROO JACK and BIKINI BANDITS. I apologize if that's the case.

The Stand by Me nod was tongue in cheek. I'd never put any of them next to Foster or Hunt. But since you named 'em, I'll give you those three, but Keifer Sutherland is the shiznit in 24.

Well, I've stated why I think they're different. I dont' really agree with your assessment. Getting Even With Dad WAS a stupid kids movie, I saw it. And I don't agree with their trajectory being similar at all. Unless Dakota's career trajectory is straight out of show business once she hits 13 years old, it's not even close. Dakota is Hollywood's IT girl. Culkin, IMO, was not. He was a star. Hollywood didn't pick him to be a star, the audiences did when they made Home Alone one of the biggest films of all time.

Anyway, I'm done with this discussion. I don't mind debating silly little things like this, but for some reason you're exceptionally defensive about someone disagreeing about this subject, for God knows what reason, and it kind of takes the fun out of it. So, I'll just say we disagree and leave it at that.

I didn't realize we were debating. This never felt like a debate. This last comment kinda points that out. Too late to take the high road now, jaeu.

As for the cheap defensive comment, please to meet you Mr. Pot, I'm Mr. Kettle...

I saw this one for the first time last night, about fifteen minutes after I got back from seeing the movie. It really is desperate marketing, trying to squeeze out some last minute cash at the expense of the movie itself. I mean they proclaim something along the lines of "You won't believe the twist ending!" while actually showing a major clip from that twist! I hate when they announce a twist anyway, but this one totally blows it! They even have

As for the movie, it was okay, and it has some real creepy energy for about 3/4 of the movie. But as soon as Which is a shame because I actually thought they were doing a good job up until that point.

Ha, Scott, much thanks for including me in your sig. I feel so loved.